How to work with branches

Benoit Boissinot bboissin at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 20:08:55 UTC 2008


On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:14:31PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> Benoit Boissinot escribió:
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Alpár Jüttner <alpar at cs.elte.hu> wrote:
>>> Instead of using transplant, I would suggest another approach. Namely,
>>>  commit the bug fix on the top of the changeset where 1.7 forked from the
>>>  trunk and then merge it to both branches with two merge commits. The
>>>  rationale could be that if a bug exists in both branches, then probably
>>>  it already existed at the point of the fork, therefore it is reasonable
>>>  to fix it there.
>>>
>>>  Do you think it a good idea? (I've never used it in practice).
>>>
>> That's what is done for mercurial itself (hg vs hg-stable). Bug fixes
>> are applied to -stable
>> if they're relevant, then they are merged back to hg.
>> The invariant is that hg-stable is always a subset of hg.
>
> But are they both together in the same .hg? AFAICS, no. But maybe I'm 
> missing something.

No, they are separates clones, but clones are a kind of branch, the
naming is just informal (the directory name).

So for example since we don't keep old stable branches, when a new
release is made, Matt pull hg into hg-stable.

regards,

Benoit
-- 
:wq



More information about the Mercurial mailing list